From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B6AC32757 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7AF2184E for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:16:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565342178; bh=TV6APTnpfV3NfB2dQiDb6/LNtdcZ4qHbPaHm2cq8Boc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=RpAFBdkHtUDn1xdQRDgamqncU+i8ME2a4eu7bKgYX6g5t9E0jJy7qJYLFzgBdiLCA 1B60UL28j7/UzIJe1AWMXuYBgcBpwiMLpBXhJgb10GkE8qngrlLSFNds4PMP2duk1X y3XuzKteKXzoEnNhqPxKp0M/ElI2daAL5V2ISvT8= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2406090AbfHIJQR (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 05:16:17 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60362 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405641AbfHIJQR (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 05:16:17 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA78B011; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:16:14 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: John Hubbard Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Ira Weiny , Jan Kara , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerome Glisse , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dan Williams , Daniel Black , Matthew Wilcox , Mike Kravetz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/mlock.c: convert put_page() to put_user_page*() Message-ID: <20190809091614.GO18351@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190805222019.28592-2-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20190807110147.GT11812@dhcp22.suse.cz> <01b5ed91-a8f7-6b36-a068-31870c05aad6@nvidia.com> <20190808062155.GF11812@dhcp22.suse.cz> <875dca95-b037-d0c7-38bc-4b4c4deea2c7@suse.cz> <306128f9-8cc6-761b-9b05-578edf6cce56@nvidia.com> <420a5039-a79c-3872-38ea-807cedca3b8a@suse.cz> <20190809082307.GL18351@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 09-08-19 02:05:15, John Hubbard wrote: > On 8/9/19 1:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 09-08-19 10:12:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > On 8/9/19 12:59 AM, John Hubbard wrote: > > > > > > That's true. However, I'm not sure munlocking is where the > > > > > > put_user_page() machinery is intended to be used anyway? These are > > > > > > short-term pins for struct page manipulation, not e.g. dirtying of page > > > > > > contents. Reading commit fc1d8e7cca2d I don't think this case falls > > > > > > within the reasoning there. Perhaps not all GUP users should be > > > > > > converted to the planned separate GUP tracking, and instead we should > > > > > > have a GUP/follow_page_mask() variant that keeps using get_page/put_page? > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. So far, the approach has been to get all the gup callers to > > > > > release via put_user_page(), but if we add in Jan's and Ira's vaddr_pin_pages() > > > > > wrapper, then maybe we could leave some sites unconverted. > > > > > > > > > > However, in order to do so, we would have to change things so that we have > > > > > one set of APIs (gup) that do *not* increment a pin count, and another set > > > > > (vaddr_pin_pages) that do. > > > > > > > > > > Is that where we want to go...? > > > > > > > > > > > We already have a FOLL_LONGTERM flag, isn't that somehow related? And if > > > it's not exactly the same thing, perhaps a new gup flag to distinguish > > > which kind of pinning to use? > > > > Agreed. This is a shiny example how forcing all existing gup users into > > the new scheme is subotimal at best. Not the mention the overal > > fragility mention elsewhere. I dislike the conversion even more now. > > > > Sorry if this was already discussed already but why the new pinning is > > not bound to FOLL_LONGTERM (ideally hidden by an interface so that users > > do not have to care about the flag) only? > > > > Oh, it's been discussed alright, but given how some of the discussions have gone, > I certainly am not surprised that there are still questions and criticisms! > Especially since I may have misunderstood some of the points, along the way. > It's been quite a merry go round. :) Yeah, I've tried to follow them but just gave up at some point. > Anyway, what I'm hearing now is: for gup(FOLL_LONGTERM), apply the pinned tracking. > And therefore only do put_user_page() on pages that were pinned with > FOLL_LONGTERM. For short term pins, let the locking do what it will: > things can briefly block and all will be well. > > Also, that may or may not come with a wrapper function, courtesy of Jan > and Ira. > > Is that about right? It's late here, but I don't immediately recall any > problems with doing it that way... Yes that makes more sense to me. Whoever needs that tracking should opt-in for it. Otherwise you just risk problems like the one discussed in the mlock path (because we do a strange stuff in the name of performance) and a never ending whack a mole where new users do not follow the new API usage and that results in all sorts of weird issues. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs